[LotR TV] So it begins...

[Deleted]

deadline.com/2017/11/lord-of-the-rings-series-eyed-warner-bros-tv-amazon-1202201636/

I hear Amazon, Netflix and HBO had been approached about the project, which comes with an upfront rights payment said to be in the $200 – $250 million range. That is just for the rights, before any costs for development, talent and production. It is a payment that has to be made sight unseen as there is no concept, and there are no creative auspices attached to the possible series. (I hear the pitch at HBO involved producer Jane Tranter whose company is partially owned by HBO and Sky but the general package has no talent attached.) On top of that, the budget for a fantasy series of that magnitude is likely to be $100-$150 a season.

I hear that Amazon and Netflix are still in the running while HBO, home of blockbuster fantasy series Game Of Thrones, passed awhile back because of the the finances of the deal that many industry observes call “insane.” Additionally, industry sources note that there are already three great Lord Of the Rings movies and a total of six movies in the world made, along with the Hobbit films. Plus, I hear that the rights for a TV series in the Lord of the Rights do not encompass all characters and are limited.

Given Amazon’s mandate to launch a big fantasy series of the scope of Game Of Thrones, which comes directly from honcho Jeff Bezos, and Amazon’s deep coffers, the company is considered a leading contender for a Lord Of the Rings series. (For context, the price tag for the rights to Lord Of the Rings is what Bezos payed for Washington Post.) Bezos has been hands-on involved in the matters of entertainment division Amazon Studios following the purge of its top executives, led by Roy Price, and has been taking meetings and making calls to agents over the past two weeks. Amazon’s talks for a Lord of the Rings TV series were first reported by Variety.

The Lord of the Rings deal would dwarf some big-ticket series commitments Amazon has made over the last couple of years — $80 million for the six-episode Woody Allen show Crisis in Six Scenes, $70+ million for Matt Weiner’s eight-episode The Romanoffs, and $160 for two seasons of David O. Russell’s series, which now has been axed after about $40 million spent. (The last two series originally came from The Weinstein Co., which no longer has involvement in The Romanoffs)

The possible Lord of the Rings TV series is done in conjunction with Warner Bros. TV, whose film studio counterpart produced the feature trilogy in the 2000s. The TV studio would not comment on the talks, which are preliminary.

The TV series pitch comes on the heels of Warner Bros. and the Tolkien estate in July settling an $80 million rights dispute over The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings after a grueling five-year court battle.

The Tolkien estate and publisher HarperCollins filed the massive lawsuit in November 2012 against Warner Bros., its subsidiary New Line and Middle-earth Enterprises — a division of Rings’ Hobbit rightsholder the Saul Zaentz Co. — claiming copyright infringement and breach of contract over video games, online slot machines and other digital merchandising.

Launched at the 2001 Cannes Film Festival with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Peter Jackson’s LOTR trilogy was a global phenomenon. Starring Elijah Wood, In McKellen, Liv Tyler, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Cate Blanchett, Orlando Bloom and others, the three films combined to gross more than $2.9 billion worldwide. LOTR: The Two Towers was released in 2002, and The Return of the King arrived the following year, becoming only the second film to top $1 billion worldwide. That third installment won 11 Oscars, including Best Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay. The previous two combined to win six Academy Awards in crafts categories.

[Falconer]

I say, bring it on! I think TV is generally a better medium for novel adaptations than movies. The thing is, the more adaptations there are, the more the books rise above them all. Anyway, if they want my advise on how to do it, here it is!

[Finarvyn]

Sounds fun. More LotR is better than less LotR.

[strangebrew]

Nov 4, 2017 16:19:11 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Sounds fun. More LotR is better than less LotR.

This is how I feel about Star Wars. Years ago I was much more of a purist snob about such things. Then the prequels came out, and after that I didn't really care, the pedestal was knocked over. I enjoyed the new movies without any nerdy outrage...I think it would be the same for LOTR. Though I didn't see the third Hobbit film, but that was just because I though the first two were terrible. Not just terrible interpretations, but just plain terrible movies.

[Deleted]

I am very, very happy to see this, too - even though I would be more enthusiastic if the move didn't come after the apparent failure of the Tolkien estate to sell a "Parade's End"-style series about the life and times of JRR during WWI. - So, this is brand marketing 101: Justify the republication of older material through the creation of a new "mothership title" every seven to nine years. And the Tolkien estate and other rights holders have followed this policy like clockwork pretty much since the publication of "The Silmarilion", and the Bakshi movie. This is why, when we talk about the tales of Beleriand, I am usually so cynical: The Tolkien estate is not so much heroically resisting the temptations of industry money, it is them setting up a brilliant marketing scheme for the late 2020s, or even the 2030s.

Now, if this series is done with writers who really know how to play with the source material, it could be absolutely amazing - no matter if it is a "Rise of Angmar"/MERP approach, or simply a retelling of the action already depicted in the movies. I hope they keep the stories at least PG-13, too, to contrast against the other series in the field. - I am not thinking about anything silly, here, I am remembering the otherwise excellent "Shadow" video games: They have solid stories to tell, but they're also gorefests. ...And I wouldn't like that to be a regular element in any treatment of Tolkien's work.

[Falconer]

Amazon has dropped an official press release.

Amazon today announced it has acquired the global television rights to The Lord of the Rings, based on the celebrated fantasy novels by J.R.R. Tolkien, with a multi-season commitment. The upcoming Amazon Prime Original will be produced by Amazon Studios in cooperation with the Tolkien Estate and Trust, HarperCollins and New Line Cinema, a division of Warner Bros. Entertainment.… Set in Middle Earth, the television adaptation will explore new storylines preceding J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring. The deal includes a potential additional spin-off series.

Lots of news here. An adaptation of LotR but set before FotR — if taken literally, one might assume the show to be based on the Appendices. There are a lot of interesting stories in the Appendices, but I would speculate that they will center it on Aragorn’s adventures in his youth, when, under the name of Thorongil, he fought for Gondor against the Corsairs of Umbar. Kind of a thin story to base a whole TV series on, but, if they really are going for a “Game of Thrones” type show—intrigue between human nations and houses, sex, sloooow buildup of the war, ignoring vast distances—then, they’ll want a humanocentric story based on Gondor but drawing in Arnor, Rohan, Umbar, Harad, and the Easterlings.

[Deleted]

So, it's going to be "MERP - The Series"? - I like.

I think your assumption might be pretty close to what we might be seeing, Falc, if only because it would fit in neatly with the movie timeline, as well. At the same time, I assume that something dealing with the rise of Angmar might not be out of the possible. On one side, Warner is already using Southern Middleearth extensively for their video game franchise, and on the other, something based around Arnor/Angmar/Arthedain/Fornost will be way cheaper to produce, and be properly removed from most of the movie locations. - My sporty bet on the battle of Fornost as the base of the story stems mainly from the fact that, by the books, hobbits were involved in that operation, if I recall correctly. So, you could easily go for a "fellowship"-like look, and base things on a lot of recognition value, without at the same time having to touch most of the movie's story. Like, just think of the possibilities... #younggandalf

[Falconer]

That’s possible. There are a lot of great storylines set in the 20th c. TA—the rise of the Éothéod Northmen, the Wainrider Easterling invasion, the Fall of Arthedain (and of Angmar), the fall of Minas Ithil and the end of Anarion’s line, all of which are interconnected. And the waking of the Balrog (not as connected). I think I would prefer that over my idea. Doesn’t mean it’s more likely!

[Stormcrow]

Ah, exploitation. Let the Disneyfication process begin!

[Falconer]

You are surely aware of the ‘Hobbit’ movies. Have you heard about the ‘Shadow’ video games? Sadly, the MExploitation is well underway.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 15, 2017 16:41:07 GMT -6 Falconer said:

You are surely aware of the ‘Hobbit’ movies.

This brings it to a whole new level, and you must know that. Christopher Tolkien believed in sticking to the terms of the film license, because he had to, and not one inch more. That protection is gone now.

And frankly, seeing Tolkien turned into Game of Thrones (because you know that's what they're going to do) is heartbreaking. Remember, they're talking about almost entirely non-Tolkien stories clinging to the Tolkien license by the slimmest of threads. You thought the Kili/Tauriel romance was bad? Superhero Legolas? That's nothing compared to what's to come.

And the worst part will always be trying to explain to people, "No, there's no such character in the books, and that thing never happens."

[Falconer]

Look up Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor and Middle-earth: Shadow of War, and you’ll see what they are already capable of. It’s shocking and disgusting. I am sad that the era of Christopher Tolkien is over, but I’ve been resigned to the inevitability for years. I know it’s a pithy adage, but, they can’t take my books away from me. It’s already super-frustrating to talk to Jackson movie fans, just like it’s frustrating to talk to Star Wars fans (hard to find common ground with people who are all about cartoons and video games and Sith) and Game of Thrones fans (as opposed to ASOIAF book fans). It’s a bit like trying to talk about OD&D to a d20 fan. The world moves on, and you cling to what you like and ignore the rest.

[robertsconley]

Nov 15, 2017 16:41:07 GMT -6 Falconer said:

You are surely aware of the ‘Hobbit’ movies. Have you heard about the ‘Shadow’ video games? Sadly, the MExploitation is well underway.

I watched a movie a fan made movie of all the cut scenes for the latest. It isn't bad and has far more Middle Earth lore than the negative reviews led me to believe was in there. The basic thing to remember is the above games deal with the fact that the protagonist is thrust in the midst of the full power of Sauron and his sorcery. In the last game the protagonist is a restless spirit of the dead. So while the game have kewl combat and powers it makes sense given the context.

[robertsconley]

As for the TV Series it could go either way. The thing to keep in mind is that Bezos got directly involved in the neogatitions. My view it will hinge on the production team he assembles. On what general direction he gives the team and wether he has any quirk about his vision of Middle Earth that reflected in his team. Until then it pretty useless to speculate what it is going to be like.

[Deleted]

I don't necessarily share the impression that TV Middleearth is beyond salvation, though. The Jackson movies, or rather, the NLC/Warner franchise is, for the very least, not terrible, and its general merrit is that the Legendarium has become part of the world's modern shared mythology. The "Shadow" games are not worse than the usual MERP, but the general approach - to make LotR a grimdark hack'n slay - is not a decision that favors their product. Like, I can see making Gimli a D&D dwarf in the movies, or sparing the audiences the acquaintance with Tom Bombadil, but to make LotR about kill rates and finishing combos, that simply misses what this is supposed to be about.

Right now, I just hope we still get the third book Chris Tolkien had promised for the second age... Gondolin, was it?

[Falconer]

First Age, and yes, you must be referring to ‘The Fall of Gondolin.’ However, as far as I am aware Christopher Tolkien has never promised its (standalone) publication, and in fact has stated that ‘Beren and Lúthien’ is his last. In ‘The Children of Húrin,’ he did reintroduce the concept of the three ‘Great Tales,’ and it does seem to me obvious that the family will want to publish it and thus complete the trilogy, as it were, of movie-ready stories.

[tetramorph]

But compared with the Children of Hurin, I found the new Beren and Luthien book almost unreadable. It is not coherent. It is more Christopher Tolkien redaction and showing his work. So it didn't engage me.

[Falconer]

Yeah, Christopher Tolkien is my hero, but I have to admit the last publication is shockingly tonedeaf. Building off the goodwill generated by the successful “reboot” with The Children of Húrin, a similarly audience-friendly book with minimal commentary and with minimal “tracing the evolution” would have been a no-brainer.

My preferred way to read the story is the complete ‘The Tale of Tinúviel’ from BoLT2, followed by ‘The Lay of Leithian’ as it stands. But many people would have been perfectly happy with a reconstruction/completion of a late-style prose epic. At least they should have named this latest book The History of Beren and Lúthien, to pave the way for a more mass appeal version. Oh well! I suppose any number of combinations of repackagings are possible, over time.

[Deleted]

Nov 16, 2017 15:33:29 GMT -6 Falconer said:

First Age, and yes, you must be referring to ‘The Fall of Gondolin.’ However, as far as I am aware Christopher Tolkien has never promised its (standalone) publication, and in fact has stated that ‘Beren and Lúthien’ is his last. In ‘The Children of Húrin,’ he did reintroduce the concept of the three ‘Great Tales,’ and it does seem to me obvious that the family will want to publish it and thus complete the trilogy, as it were, of movie-ready stories.

I read a report in a German newspaper earlier this year where the "Great Tales" aspect was detailed; there, things were presented as if the book on Gondolin had already been included in a past publishing deal, but then delayed over the publication of "B & L". - Myself, I have not been able to give more than a passing glance to that latest book, but it seems it accomplishes what it sets out to do, even if it's style and form have become almost alien to the current state of the franchise.

In general, I'd love to see more material adapted; however, with love! The movies, the games, all are fine and well, but - what about, say, a good graphic novel, again, for example? Or, another audioplay of material that had not yet been released when the BBC renditions came out? - Instead, we're getting mass market ware that, for or better or worse, always has to strive to reduce complexity, and speak to the zeitgeist of a teenage audience. That's fair and game, as well, but it's how you create sales, not the literary culture that was allowed to organically grow around LotR. :/

[Stormcrow]

Nov 17, 2017 3:13:15 GMT -6 @rafael said:

what about, say, a good graphic novel [...] Instead, we're getting mass market ware that, for or better or worse, always has to strive to reduce complexity, and speak to the zeitgeist of a teenage audience.

Graphic novel adaptations must, by necessity of the form, reduce complexity, and they almost always speak to the zeitgeist of a teenage audience while maintaining the pretense that they are for a more mature audience (usually by being moody).

I have a graphic novel adaptation of The Hobbit, and that describes it exactly. I really can't see the point of it (I was given it as a gift). So there ARE graphic novel adaptations of Tolkien. If the Tolkien Estate really does loosen up, we may eventually see one of The Silmarillion.

[Deleted]

I *think* I remember that one, too, and, if memory serves right, I share your assessment - it was not even particularly bad, just an average '90s graphic novel. Now, my point was less about the specific genre, but, of course, about that adaptations that come as non-billion enterprises have a value as well. - For example, remember the old SNES Lord of the Rings game? - That one had all of Bag End mapped out, for no practical in-game reason, and you could walk around and explore nearly every place, and meet nearly every named character from the novels. That's what I refer to when I say, "with love". Or, the Blind Guardian quasi-musical "Nightfall on Middleearth", to name something completely different: Corny as hell, but still... A labor of love.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 18, 2017 6:47:08 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Or, the Blind Guardian quasi-musical "Nightfall on Middleearth", to name something completely different: Corny as hell, but still... A labor of love.

While I'm certain Tolkien would not have cared for power metal, I believe he would have appreciated the idea behind Nightfall in Middle-earth nonetheless. The album is not fan-fiction or making things up to suit commercial consumption; it is singing songs about the Silmarillion stories. Tolkien invented the stories; Blind Guardian is singing ABOUT the stories.

The purpose of the Amazon deal is to make money. Bezos has said he wants something as big a hit as Game of Thrones; Tolkien fits that bill, so he'll produce it. If Tom Corbett, Space Cadet, suddenly became the most popular thing on the internet, and everyone was clamoring for a TV show of it, you can bet he'd pick that instead of Tolkien. Bezos doesn't want to make a Tolkien TV show because the artist in him wants to express itself reflecting Tolkien's world; he recognizes the commercial opportunity and wants to exploit it. I don't fault him for that; that's how his business works. But it's not a labor of love.

[Falconer]

So, can a megacorporation produce a true labor of love? Does a labor of love have to be ground up, or can an ultra-powerful CEO use his vast resources to find and enable just the right person to creatively helm the project?

[Stormcrow]

Nov 18, 2017 12:28:03 GMT -6 Falconer said:

can an ultra-powerful CEO use his vast resources to find and enable just the right person to creatively helm the project?

Sure, one can. How likely do you think it is that an ultra-powerful CEO—and the board telling him or her what to do—are also interested in producing a labor of love that will not produce the greatest possible financial return?

[Deleted]

The question is, though, ***should*** a producer even be concerned about the artistic dimension? Like, what would Mr Bezos qualifications be, other than "being the money", and perhaps liking the general topic of an enterprise, to be involved with any creative endeavor? I keep thinking of that scene in "Shakespeare in Love" where Ned Alleyn and the producer have that funny argument... Now, what CEOs CAN do is to create a frame where other, creative specialists can work.

Now, in equally general terms, I agree that producers seem to have to much influence on modern movie-making, especially: The Hobbit trilogy, Ridley Scott's take on Robin Hood, the first two Wolverines, the last Terminators, as well as the Mad Max franchise... The list of movies that were helmed by an excellent creative team, but plainly brutalized by their money-givers is endless. And just imagine how badly that stuff is going to age.

[Stormcrow]

Nov 19, 2017 9:11:29 GMT -6 @rafael said:

The question is, though, ***should*** a producer even be concerned about the artistic dimension?

Yes. A producer can, at whim, declare what he or she wants in any aspect of a production. "I want Aragorn to be bald, because bald is the new sexy." "I want to make all the dwarves women, because gender-swapping is the new hotness." If you want to keep true to artistry, the producer must be on board with that.

[Falconer]

I wonder why they brought New Line Cinema in on the deal. Were they obligated to do so, for some reason (as part of a settlement of a previous lawsuit)? Or is it just that convenient not to have to redesign visuals or something?

[Stormcrow]

They're envisioning this as a spin-off of Peter Jackson's films.

[Deleted]

Actually, redesigning the visuals is a factor here, especially concerning the CGI, is a huge factor in pre-production: Pre-production for LotR is said to haven taken four years, from mid-1995 to late 1999, with sets like Rivendel or Lothlorien taking more than a year to build. Even taking into consideration all sorts of technological advancement, I am going to assume that efforts like that would be improbable even for the biggest and most ambitious TV productions. - GoT, for example, while generally heralded as the most costly TV production of all time, still makes heavy use of existing locations - because HBO doesn't want to affort CGI of that magnitude.

I for my part will be glad if there will be at least some visual consistency; Jackson, after all, based the looks of the movies on the illustrations of John Howe, Allan Lee, from the Bakshi movie, and from MERP. So, redesigning things just in order to avoid copyright issues would seem most unnecessary to me. Back in the day, the movies looked like my gaming books looked; I can live with that.

[tkdco2]

Any recent news on this project? I haven't heard anything about it in a while.



Meanwhile, back in Rivendell...


Elrond: I hear some adventurers are exploring the ruins of Barad Dur.

tkdco2: Hoom! That sounds like a hasty decision.

Elrond: I'm inclined to agree... Wait! Did you just say "Hoom"?

tkdco2: Oh! Sorry. I've been talking with Treebeard quite a bit recently.

Elrond: I wonder how you'd talk if you spent some time with Tom Bombadil.

tkdco2: I'd much rather spend time with Goldberry! (grins)

Elrond: I'll pretend I didn't hear that!